developed and led the reform of ideas on evolution, but there were other scientists proposing the same ideas at the same time. In recent times the northern European nations have been the most influential reformers of societal standards. Even to this day, new standards in animal welfare devised in Europe are often extended to former Anglo-Saxon colonies, such as Australia, New Zealand, the United States and Canada several years later. The concerns are spreading worldwide, with societies to protect animal welfare becoming established or strengthened in most areas of the world. Given that most social movements of the last two centuries have usually lasted between 25 and 50 years, we can expect that there will continue to be a major emphasis on animal rights and welfare improvement for several more decades, and probably it will last until standards have considerably improved. Given the contentious nature of our moral stance on animal welfare issues, it was perhaps inevitable that all animal rights activity would become synon- ymous with extremist views, in just the same way as those directly involved in the female emancipation movement were branded extremists. In reality, most members of the public acknowledge that animals should have some rights and recognize that this will lead to an improvement in welfare. However, they would not necessarily hold the extremist view that animals cannot be used by humans. A mutually symbiotic relationship between animals and man is, and will con- tinue to be, accepted by most people, even after the 40–50 years or so of welfare reforms that can be anticipated. Such a relationship acknowledges that man dictates, and to some extent restricts, the basic freedoms of animals, but also assures a life that is reasonably well provided for, at least in terms of nutri tion, safety and health care. The animal rights advocacy framework has been not only growing but also becoming more sophisticated, and is part of the general evolution in social cause support groups. In the US these are doubling in size every twenty years, partly due to disillusion with political forces, and in particular the large size of the electoral unit. Communication with members is greatly facilitated by the inter- net (Lewis, 2005). The major activist organizations have membership lists of millions of supporters and very significant budgets. They employ many well- trained scientists to research campaigns, so that the organisation is well pre- pared when the campaign starts. Campaigns are focused on achievable targets, often involving groups in society that are susceptible to pressure. Typical weaknesses that can be exploited include the belief by young school children that animals used for fast food production are unhappy, the guilt of house spouses if they purchase fast food in preference to spending time preparing quality meals for their family, and the teenagers’ fear that meat would make them smell unattractive or that milk would cause acne. Campaigns are often run in militaristic style, with victories heralded on the website. Bequests are still the major source of funding, but increasingly indust ry is targeted for support, and a seal of approval by the activist group may assist sales as well as helping advertising. By contrast the target animal industries have smaller budgets and employ fewer researchers to defend their practices. The Evolution of Standards Supporting Moral Behaviour Towards Animals 57 In addition to the legitimate non-government organisations, there are also animal activist groups, that support illegal acts, although they usually require that these should not harm people or animals. These might include arson, harassment, vandalism, animal release and even bombing. Because the mem- bers of such societies engage in illegal activity, they do not have leaders but active spokespeople. Similarly, for legal protection they are not a club or an organization that people can join, but a concept that is realized only when an action takes place using the society’s name. They aim to liberate animals from enclosed situations, such as laboratories, intensive meat animal farms, fur farms, etc, and place them in homes where they may live out their natural lives. They also seek to inflict economic damage on those who profit from using animals, and to make the public aware of the circumstances in which the animals are kept. The societies increasingly focus on electronic civil disobedience, such as frequent e-mails or telephone calls to those involved in the animal industries. They may identify a network of companies associated with a target organization, and try to persuade them to withdraw their support for the company. Whilst few people would condone the illegal nature of the activities of some members of these societies, it must be remembered that in the past activists of this nature have often illegally protested against activities that seemed acceptable at the time, but eventually come to be viewed as unacceptable to society at large. Slow responses, bureaucracy and congestion in the legislative channels encourage members of the public to support groups engaged in direct action. Although the activities of some of the larger societies are across all the major animal use industries, the food sector is an increasingly popular target. This is partly because of our strong sense of empathy with farm animals that provide us with food and many other commodities (see Chapter 3), and partly because the food industry is now dominated by a small number of integrated, multinational companies (making them easy targets and creating the possibility of a domino effect within the industry). The mode of action of the social activist groups is changing. Traditionally they simply lobbied parliament, which would then regulate industry. However, nowadays activist groups manufa cture an issue (which is given a catchy slogan), create a public debate around the issue and make someone within the sector responsible. A viable alternative to the practice in question must be available and the transition must be achievable. The company is then forced to pursue this in order not to lose public support. The most popular targets are practices that are unnatural, cruel, the result of human greed and displaying a lack of human care. These will attract far more concern than natural events that challenge the animals’ welfare, such as drought. Consider the livestock export industry, sending about 6 million sheep from Australia to the Middle East and about one million cattle each year in large vessels. Such long distance transport is easy portray to the public as unnatural, as the animals are kept on large vessels for up to two weeks. Even before entering the ship, stock are transported to the port in vehicles, in which there may be bruising to the limbs, or animals may lie down and be unable to get 58 4 Animal Welfare and Animal Rights up (Jarvis et al., 1996). At the wharf, where loading is often in full view of the public, electronic goads may be used to handle the animals during loading, which stresses them (Warner et al., 2007). Once on board, the biggest problem for cattle leaving Australia in winter is that they still have their winter coat, which renders them more susceptible to heat stress when they enter the summer of the northern hemisphere. To counter this problem, the Australian govern- ment has stopped cattle being shipped from the southern ports of Australia in winter (Anon, 2006). The industry has also developed a computer model that estimates the impact of the type of cattle, their degree of acclimatization and the anticipated weather conditions during the voyag e on heat stress risk, and adjusts the stocking density of cattle or sheep on the ship accordingly (Stacey, 2003). A high risk of heat stress results in stocking density being relaxed, allowing the animals to lose heat more easily. The most serious problem facing sheep on the ship is inappetence, with animals that are too fat being particularly prone to anorexia, in which apparently fit and healthy animals give up eating (Higgs et al., 1991). Fat animals are able to do without food for a few days more easily than thin ones, but then they permanently lose the de sire to eat and may die as a result. Although the numbers of Australian sheep rejected are not known, in England over the last eight years approximately 0.02% or 2755 animals were rejected at the place of origin (out of total shipment of almost 200,000 sheep, 500 cattle and 150 pigs, traveling from England to the European continent in 50 shipments each year, DEFRA, 2006). As I have argued elsewhere (Phillips, 2005b), it is possible to consider such long distance transport necessary because the livestock are reared in extensive rangeland conditions, far from the centres of human population. However, with such large numbers of animals and over the considerable period of time that they are transported, even on the best shipments there will be some mortalities en route. Defendants often point to the reduction in mortality in recent years (Norris and Gorman, 2007), now down to about 0.9% for sheep, but the animal welfare activists counter this by saying that 0.9% of 50,000 sheep is still an average of 450 deaths on each voyage. This argument appeals to the public perception that all animal’s lives are to be respected and valued. The trade is also easily portrayed as a result of human greed, since the city-dwelling public is inclined to believe that livestock farmers are profiting excessively from the trade. Finally the lack of human care has been prominently exploited in the video footage of the handling of the animals in the recipient countries, some of which showed cattle having their leg tendons cut to stop them running away in an Egyptian abattoir (Animals Australia, 2008). The battle for the hearts and minds of the public continues. Increasingly, the activist groups work through networks of supporters that are created on the internet. Direct assistance for lobbying is provided, which is a powerful influence on politicians in their decision making. Support for school activities is common, because this will influence opinion makers of the future. Information packs to assist teachers are made available, although in many coun- tries industry has retaliated by attempting to reach into schools with counter views. The Evolution of Standards Supporting Moral Behaviour Towards Animals 59 The high profile of the activists’ campaigns ensures public support, which generates funds for the next campaign, and so on. In these campaigns, the focus is usually on a small part of the industry or one practice within it, such as the recent effective action against the mulesing 8 of sheep, rather than targeting the whole industry, even though many of the campaigners will be against the use of animals for food. The response of industry should be measured and considered, but it is often more of a knee-jerk reaction, in part because they see a dramatic shift in public support and are unsure what effect this will have on their business. They recognize that the financial impact of the adverse publicity is likely to exceed the direct losses caused by any change in practice. Often the media attention is very one-sided, and it is clear that the media have devised their story to appeal to public sentiment, without considering that industry may have a valid counter- story. The major risk if considered action is not taken is that management of the animal industries by referendum evolves, rather than by considered government. Influences on Concern for Animal Welfare To properly understand how the animal welfare movement is strengthening and expanding, it is necessary to consider the main influences, or drivers, for this movement. Concern for animal welfare is growing in most regions of the world, that much is evident from the attention paid to it by the media, the growing volume of scientific research in animal welfare (Fig. 8.1) and the increasing attention paid to animal welfare issues by governments around the world. It is important for the animal industries, and in particular the livestock industries, to be able to predict future changes in concern for animal welfare in order to manage the scale and direction of the industry, and most importantly, to provide the type of production system with which the public feel comfortable. Rapid changes may have detrimental effects on animal welfare, for example if live export of cattle from the northern parts of Australia were banned, they would be taken to southern states for sale and the lower price achieved would probably reduce the farmers’ ability to feed their cattle adequately, at least in the short term. Different regions of the world will have their own unique consideration for animal welfare issues, and the many drivers of concern for these issues will have levels of importance that are peculiar to the region. Therefore, it is essential to understand not only how animal welfare concern is changing globally, but also the influences that are likely to be the most important in different regions. One of the key influences is affluence, with people having more disposable income being more likely to purchase products from a high anima l welfare system (Rahmann, 2000). Most regions of the world have experienced 8 Surgical removal of loose skin from the hind quarters of sheep to prevent flies laying their eggs in the moist folds. 60 4 Animal Welfare and Animal Rights increasing affluence in the last 50 years – a result of economic growth and development and exploitation of many of the world’s resources. The major exception to this is Africa, and in addition to this, there have been some serious but mostly temporary setbacks to economic growth in the former communist countries. As well as people having more money to spend on welfare-friendly products, countries that have experienced high economic growth have sought to increase the profitability of their animal industries by intensifying the produc- tion systems. Thus it may be difficult to discern whether the increased purchase of welfare-friendly animal products in the affluent countries derives from the increased concern about the animal production system or increased disposable income to spend on these products. As well as there being increased disposable income, with the widespread adoption of capitalist financial policies, many countries have witnessed a greater divergence of income in their population. This is particularly relevant to animal welfare purchases if there is a threshold above which people start to spend more on welfare-friendly products, after they have satisfied their own material needs. There is no direct evidence of this to date, but if it is determined to be an economic phenomenon, we might expect some exponential growth in spending on welfare-friendly products as incomes increase, dependent on the difference in cost of welfare-friendly products relative to conventionally pro- duced goods. This divergence in disposa ble income varies between regions. It has been most pronounced recently in the former communist countries, emer- ging from the conversion to capitalism, and least marked in countries with a high level of social responsibility, such as Australia, New Zealand and the Scandinavian countries. As well as affluence, different regions of the world display varying levels of concern for animal welfare depending on their cultural heritage. As outlined previously, a preliminary survey has suggested that students from some Asian countries had less concern for animal welfare than those from Europe or Amer- ica, but they all had similar levels of concern for animal rights (Phillips and McCulloch, 2005). This is likely to be due to their different cultural heritage and the levels of education of people within these countries. Levels of concern for animal welfare issues tend to increase with the level of education (Poss and Bader, 2007). The increase in educational standards in South and East Asia, following on from a period of significant economic growth, may be one reason for the growth in animal welfare interests in this area. The growth in awareness of animal welfare issues was originally a phenomenon largely confined to the Anglo-Saxon regions of the world, northern Europe, the northern sector of North America, and to a lesser extent, Australia and New Zealand. However, the movement appears to be spreading, partly driven by new national and international stan- dards from the European Union. Some cultural traditions towards animals derive from religious teachings, others from the different practices in relation to animal management that have evolved over the last few centuries. There is much debate about the influence of religion on concerns surrounding animal welfare (Lindeman and Vaananen, Influences on Concern for Animal Welfare 61 2000), but the low number of adherents to religious creeds and practices in much of the Anglo-Saxon world suggests that religion is not a direct major driver of concern, rather an indirect driver through former influences on culture and beliefs (Li, 2000). An absence of direct influence of religion is suggested by reduced levels of concern for animal welfare in Asian people compared with northern Europeans (Phillips and McCulloch, 2005), even though the Buddhist and Moslem religions, which predominate in Asia, contain more teaching and instruction on the good management of animals than the teachings of Christ, which are officially followed in northern Europe (see Chapter 6). Furthermore, the small proportion of the population that is confirmed adherents to religious faith of their country in northern European countries may have increased the need for the development of codes of practice and legislation in these countries. Coupled with increasing affluence in nearly all first world countries, there has been an increasing trend towards urbanization in all regions of the world. For many in developed regions of the world this brings greater affluence, and so the two influences on animal welfare are intertwined. But urbanization also brings removal from day-to-day contact with farming practices, and this loss of regular contact with the farming industry results in people becoming more sensitive to farm animal cruelty. Standards for keeping animals may be derived more from their companion animals, than food animals. Probably regular exposure to food animals in the rural population brings about a desire to support the rural industries and community, even if people are not directly involved in farming. Urbanisation brings opportunities of choice for consumers of animal pro- ducts. City dwellers use their affluence to eat out more in restaurants and fast food outlets, and this brings the opportunity to purchase high quality meals from welfare-friendly items without requiring more time and knowledge on the part of the consumer in the preparation process. Hence expenditure on food is increasing, and because food consumption is a major source of pleasure, we may expect the provision of welfare-friendly products through commercial outlets to increase substantially in future years (Denton et al., 1999). Gender is also a major influence on animal welfare concerns. Fema les have greater levels of concern for animal welfare issues than males (Phillips and McCullough, 2005), although this may not extend to food purchasing habits (Lindeman and Vaananen, 2000). This greater concern of women may derive from the close relationship between the women and animals at the homestead during human evolut ion (see Chapter 3). There may also be some general- isation, from the more caring attitude that women have towards children than men, as a result of their greater investment in the reproductive process. Up until recently, women have always been the major food purchasers in shops and markets, however, with female emancipation having been a major force in the last century, and many women leaving the home to work, we should not assume that the majority of purchases of food items will be by women in the future. Animal welfare concern is very much related to gender. The personality traits usually associated with masculinity (adventure-seeking, aggression and 62 4 Animal Welfare and Animal Rights dominance) are in contradiction to the caring, compassionate nature of the human feminine nature that is often associated with concern for animal welfare. The association between femininity and animal welfare attitude is explored by Laurie Carlson in her book Cattle – an Informal Social History, in which she contrasts the femininity of cow keeping with the masculinity of men hunting wild animals in prehistory (Carlson, 2002). The link between animal welfare and gender was also advocated by Mahatma Gandhi, who indirectly corrected the masculine human personality characteristics to a lack of care for animals, which he considered to be an indicator of moral backwardness 9 (Gandhi, 1927). Animal Welfare vs Animal Rights There is a fundament al distinction between animal welfare – the quality and quantity of an animal’s experiences – and animal rights – man’s duty to exercise morally correct behaviour in relation to animals. An animal’s welfare is a scientific absolute, evaluated on a continuous scale from low to high. By contrast, animals’ rights are determined by beliefs and their existence is even denied by many individuals, religious groups and most legislation, for which animals are just property. Extreme advocates of animal rights usually believe that the life and integrity of individuals is of paramount importance and cannot be sacrificed for the benefit of humans or other animals. However, some have argued more generally that ‘rights’ are unsuitable to be the building blocks of society, because they are firstly illogical in some instances (why do wild animals have fewer rights than farm animals, for example?) and they are secondly, focused on ourselves and those injustices that are uncomfortable for us to live with (Bagaric, 2006). Bargaric argues that focu sing on the conseque nces of our actio ns would be more logical. However , public sentiment is usually suppor- tive of incr easing both the standards of animal welfare and the level of rights afforded to animals, although they are not always willing t o pay the extra cost. Presc ribing rights creates a spher e where we ca n live comfortably without being conf ronted by hardship and c ruelty . However, with increased commu- nication aroun d the globe, we must remember that images and actions from places ot her than our imm ediate neighbourhood may intrude on our daily lives . In some cases, the entitlement to life proposed by many animal rightists may conflict with the animal welfare advocates, who frequently espouse a utilitarian view. For example, animal welfare advocates may believe that animals may legitimately be sacrificed in experimentation to find a technique for improving animal health, if it improves the welfare of other animals sufficiently, whereas animal rightists would oppose such sacrifice. Mahatma Gandhi was one of 9 ‘The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated’ M. Gandhi. Animal Welfare vs Animal Rights 63 many animal rights advocates who did not believe in utilitarianism. 10 Animal rights do not have to be extreme, they could simply relate to a right not to be maltreated to a certain degree, rather than a right to a life or the maintenance of integrity. This is enshrined in much new legislation concerning people’s duty of care to animals. In this less extreme rights philosophy, the type of beneficiary may determine the level of an animal’s rights. If the perceived beneficiary of, for example, animal experimentation is a member of the family of the aggrieved animal, its right to avoidance of the exp erimentation would in most people’s view be less than if it was merely conducted to be a benefit for another animal species. Many people still take an anthropocentric view and consider that a benefit to humans is the most worthy and justifiable reason for animal experi- mentation. Preservation of similar genetics is the primary force at work and is likely to be more engrained in our attitudes for the purposes of adaptive evolution. Some even argue that this attitude prevails within our own species: countries where the inhabitants are ethnically pure, such as in Scandinavia, are more likely to have an extensive human welfare support systems (Ragin, 1994; Rojas, 1999; Kildal and Kuhnle, 2002; Bay et al., 2007). People in the Scandi- navian countries have the highest expectations for the welfare of their animals of any in Europe, and they also recognize that provision for welfare is at a high level in their country (Eurobarometer, 2007), suggesting that high expectations can produce improved welfare outcome. The animal rights movement is likely to grow in rapidly developing countries such as Australia, due to increased urbanization and the increasing spread of American ideologies, of which animal rights philosophy is one. The modern animal welfare movement originated in Europe, and hence the two most influ- ential regions of the world on Australian ideology, the USA and Europe, both have strong considerations for animals, although from different perspectives. These influences are likely to continue and even strengthen due to the dom- inance of the USA and Europe in world affairs. Western Attitudes Towards Animal Welfare Australia is a high income, urbanised society, and both the affluence and the degree of urbanisation tend to increase the strength of concern for animal welfare and rights. The recent history of colonising land that is marginal and climatically challenged has led to speculation that the competition created between live stock and native fauna in such environments is too great, an d that these areas should be left for native fauna (Higgins et al., 2002). This movement has been grow ing in parallel with the animal welfare movement, and both movements are increasing as people have more money to spend on 10 ‘I do not believe in the doctrine of the greatest good of the greatest number. The only real, dignified, human doctrine is the greatest good of all’ (Gandhi, undated). 64 4 Animal Welfare and Animal Rights food that is produced to high standards of welfare, as well as safety and environmental sustainability. Increasingly, there will be less acceptance of farming practices that do not conform to the high ideals of a largely urbanised society. The emergence of animal rights considerations has been a gradual develop- ment over the last 150 years, beginning with the Darwinian acceptance that there are no fundamental biological differences between animals and man, and that man evolved from animal progenitors. In fact, this fundamental challenge to anthropocentrism was much more revolutionary than the gradual acceptance that animals have rights, which is emerging today. Extreme animal rights advocates today form a body of highly dedicated and determined individuals, who are resolute in their pursuance of rights for animals and who usually occupy a more radical position in their beliefs about animal rights than the general public. History suggests that these people will be seen in the future as the social reformers of their day, in the same way that female emancipators and slave trade campai gners are now viewed as a necessary part of the social evolution of our democracies. As they represent an extreme sector of the population’s views on animals’ rights, we do not have to expect that all of their beliefs will become incorporated as a societal norm, for instance opposing the killing of animals for meat. Although they often support the most extreme positions, e.g. veganism, they usually expect to persuade government and individuals to support some of their more moderate demands, for instance the banning of cages or stalls for sows to be held in during pregnancy. Their message is appealing to the media, containing the classically attractive elements of first, cruelty or at least antisocial behaviour towards a defenceless being; second, domesticated animals; and third, social reform: an attack on the land- owners, who are perceived to be rich. There is also the possibility of redistribu- tion of their wealth to the land poor members of the public, if the landowners can be persuaded or forced to adopt more costly, welfare-friendly practices at no extra charge to the consumer. Over the last 50 years, industrialisation of animal agriculture has dramatically reduced the price of animal products, but sometimes at the expense of the quality of life of the animals. However, with man’s inherent love of aesthetics and the natural world, we readily empathise with animals that are kept in unsuitable facilities, and act to eliminate unac- ceptable practices. Addressing the Animal Rights Issues In the long term, the best way to address the issues posed by animal rights extremists is through scientific investigation to find suitable alternatives to the systems that are the subject of the criticism. In addition, knowing how the public perceive animal practices and educating farmers about how new prac- tices can improve animal welfare is essential. Most farmers would be very happy Addressing the Animal Rights Issues 65 to use more or better resources than they currently do to improve the welfare of their animals, however, their system of production has to be economic. The welfare state of farm animals is therefore at least pa rtly the product of consumer buying habits. Developing accurate information for consumers on welfare status is essential. Anticipating the activists’ next focus of attention will enable an effective public education response to be mounted at the right time, but in reality research should be in place and information programmes available for all the major animal practices that are suspected of presenting a challenge to animal welfare. Australia has some different welfare issues to Europe, such as poor feed availability for rangeland stock, which is generally not so much of a problem in Europe. This relates to the more marginal land that is used for livestock rearing in Australia, compared with Europe. The extensive nature of Australian live- stock farming brings threats of food shortages, but also opportunities to inform the public that these practices are conducive to fulfilling the an imal’s natural requirements for space and a natural social order, in comparison with European production systems that more commonly includ e intensive animal housing, which is often crowded and does not respect the mother-offspring relationship. Such advantages are actively promoted by New Zealand, but Australia has to first address the worldwide view that its livestock farming is inherently cruel because of the invasive practices that it employs. The unacceptability of invasive practices to animal rights activists is founded in their belief in maintaining the integrity of the animal. Therefore practices such as dehorning, tail docking, branding and mulesing are all seen as undesirable, even if the consequences of not doing the practice brings greater harm, or a risk of greater harm. Some would even take this view if not doing the practice produces a negative welfare situation overall, such as when a sheep is struck by flies because it has not had the folds of skin removed from the hind quarters in the mulesing operation. There is an urgent need for critical evaluation of the impact of invasi ve practices on whole-of-life welfare, including disease evaluation that incorporates assess- ment of the duration of the disease and the severity. Free choice of the animal to select the optimum environment and diet are also perceived by many as desirable, since our ability to exercise free choice is one of our most valued resources. There is currently little evidence that animals do or do not value this free choice. Research on diet selection by sheep suggests that they make limited use of pre-consumption information that might direct choices, rather regular information processing during feeding informs choices directly (Illius et al., 1992). Furthermore, when eating an ideal diet, they will regularly return to sample an inadequate diet. This could be because they want to confirm that the diet is inadequate, but it could also be to maintain a microflora in the gut that is capable of digesting both an ideal and inadequate diet, in case they only have access to the latter in future. Thus it is beneficial for animals to experience good and bad circumstances, particularly as they develop, so that they can learn to cope with the bad circumstances. 66 4 Animal Welfare and Animal Rights [...]... employed for keeping animals when they started domesticating them about 12 C ago, provided for a good standard of nutrition, health and safety for the animals, but also dictated their longevity, their relationship with their offspring and other animals that they kept and the utilization of products from the animals, such as milk As humans have developed, in terms of the conditions under which they live, it... convey an appearance of grace and elegance in the same way as the Egyptian engravings The emphasis is on mastery of nature, rather than the 70 4 Animal Welfare and Animal Rights suffering involved in animal sacrifice Similarly the ancient Greeks did not glorify the torture and slaughter of animals in the way the Romans did, although they did sacrifice animals to appease the gods, in particular bulls (Thomas,... Spain by the Moors, who established bull-fights in the ancient Roman amphitheatres of Andalusia The bull-fight, unlike the ritualized pagan slaughter of animals, cock-fighting or fox hunting, assumes some of its appeal because of the danger that men face when fighting the animals This supplication to the hot-blooded nature of the Latin temperament has ensured its recent survival in the face of mounting... if the veterinarian was called in by someone other than the animal abuser, or whether to report the incident to the police or the animal cruelty inspectorate Ethicists usually come down on the side of the animal (Rollin, 2006) In the United Kingdom, newly qualified veterinarians, on entry to their controlling body or college at the end of their study swear an oath13 that requires them to put the welfare. .. 25.0 44 .4 0.12–0.61 110–225 183–365 27.2 49 .2 176–1317 1.88–7.00 36.1 0.31 157 248 36.6 46 7 4. 3 27.1 0.29 81 367 34. 9 343 6.5 Concluding Remarks 77 purpose other than to provide a distraction for the animal concerned is one possible indicator of mental suffering Broom and Johnson (1993) suggest that stereotypies performed for 40 % of the time indicate very poor welfare, those performed for just 5% of the. .. form of aggression than between two people For the veterinarian, the issue is a classical dilemma, since they have responsibilities to their clients, to their profession, to animals, to society and to themselves, which can easily present conflicts of interest, particularly between clients and animals The most commonly abused animals are cats and dogs, which is no doubt in part due to the fact that they... suppress the coloured people at the turn of the century (Black, 2003), and before this to the views of Sir Francis Galton, who took the works of his cousin, Darwin, one stage further to advocate selective breeding of humans for the purposes of genetic improvement (Allen, 2002) Fortunately, although the eugenics movement continues in a variety of forms, the rate of death from war declined substantially in the. .. responsibilities to their family above their professional responsibilities to animals Farmers are often not collectively organized to obtain an adequate return from the retailers of their products, some of which may take advantage of this, so that they can reduce prices to the public and improve the competitiveness of their products The general public appears to be increasingly less well informed about the management... grandparents, this is increasingly no longer the case, and people rely more on the media for information ‘Abuse of animals stories are popular with the public and appeal to their concern for animals Another concern relating to assessment of welfare by the public is that their views differ depending on their culture, country of origin etc In the multinational survey of students of many different nationalities previously... slaughtered The Romans sacrificed vast numbers of animals to appease the gods, even accepting that there may be some inaccuracies in the historical records Animals heads were first sprinkled with bread and wine and then disemboweled for inspection of the quality of their internal organs, before having their throats cut (Anon, 2008a) Any imperfections led to other animals being used Bulls were particularly . do not believe in the doctrine of the greatest good of the greatest number. The only real, dignified, human doctrine is the greatest good of all’ (Gandhi, undated). 64 4 Animal Welfare and Animal. dramatically reduced the price of animal products, but sometimes at the expense of the quality of life of the animals. However, with man’s inherent love of aesthetics and the natural world, we. relationship with their offspring and other animals that they kept and the utilization of products from the animals, such as milk. As humans have developed, in terms of the conditions under which they live,